Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Devuan 4.0 Alpha Builds Begin For Debian 11 Without Systemd

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    Originally posted by jacob View Post
    systemd-resolved and systemd-networkd are being used.
    I'm afraid, systemd-resolved and systemd-networkd are not being used and much like the rest of systemd, are buggy and immature without solving the problem. This is an egregiously recurring theme.

    Originally posted by jacob View Post
    systemd-homed is too new and not ready yet
    Yeah, about that ...

    Originally posted by jacob View Post
    As far as systemd-boot goes, that's one area where systemd is currently substandard, I agree
    ... and that. systemd-boot aka bad ol' gummiboot is not too new and yet here we are. Bad design coupled with hacks glued together. Just adding more does not make your system more integrated.

    Originally posted by jacob View Post
    I regret that systemd-boot is not being used more
    Why?! You just admitted it is substandard. It's old software that does its job badly.

    Originally posted by jacob View Post
    That does not take away its many other advantages, mind you.
    Yeah, like
    Code:
    machinectl su
    LOL. Seriously though, there are no advantages if you cannot boot. Android and chromeOS are far more integrated without using systemd and boot reliably on billions of devices.

    Disparaging as this may seem, I'm not dumping on systemd. I just see it as another failure towards integration, marred by the ambitions, scope and design decisions of its creators. Their efforts could have provided us with an integrated system, but it never happened.

    Comment


    • #42
      I'm not a systemd hater, I just dislike it. Systemd is like an Brussels bureaucrat who thinks it knows what's best for my system. When bureaucratd decides i'm not aloud to log back in after a period of inactivity, Drops me to a tty for 2 mins and then reboots! That's a bit too much power for pid#1.
      BTW love it or hate it this is a good read https://suckless.org/sucks/systemd/

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by matsukan View Post
        systemd would nice if goal is not replace everything with their bloatware code. systemd is biggest threat Linux itself than any Freebsd distro can be even be.
        Apart from the self-perpetuating meme about systemd being "bloated" (any actual evidence of that?), claims like that miss the point that systemd is not "init" and was never meant to be a mere init replacement. Just read the very first post by Lennart. Systemd has always been meant to be a comprehensive userland environment built from the ground up. It's more analogous to GNU (or to FreeBSD as a whole) than to init. The service manager was just the first component they released; the stated goal was PRECISELY to replace everything even before the first line of code was written. So bashing it because it puts everything "into init" is about as intelligent as bashing the FSF because they supposedly put a Lisp-based text editor, coreutils and a full-featured shell into a C compiler.

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by jacob View Post
          It uses execline. Seriously, execline!
          I fail to see the problem - it is perfectly adapted as a posix compliant parser especially for work on embedded systems, which is where s6 really shines.

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by dreich View Post
            I'm afraid, systemd-resolved and systemd-networkd are not being used and much like the rest of systemd, are buggy and immature without solving the problem. This is an egregiously recurring theme.
            They are used in Arch and Debian, RHEL is considering switching away from NetworkManager for systemd-networkd in RHEL9 (makes sense for a server-oriented OS). Ubuntu and Fedora don't use systemd-networkd because they are desktop OSes and Network Manager is the right one for a desktop, but they still use systemd-resolved.

            Any evidence for how "buggy and immature" they are?

            Originally posted by dreich View Post
            ... and that. systemd-boot aka bad ol' gummiboot is not too new and yet here we are. Bad design coupled with hacks glued together. Just adding more does not make your system more integrated.
            So...? By the way it's not badly designed, it's actually pretty good, but far too primitive for the real world needs except in very basic cases. No-one says everything in systemd is gold.

            Originally posted by dreich View Post
            Why?! You just admitted it is substandard. It's old software that does its job badly.
            I mean I wish it was at the same level of advancement and maturity as some other systemd tools. GRUB2 is an abomination and it's a shame that we still don't have anything better.

            Originally posted by dreich View Post
            Yeah, like
            Code:
            machinectl su
            LOL. Seriously though, there are no advantages if you cannot boot. Android and chromeOS are far more integrated without using systemd and boot reliably on billions of devices.
            What have you got against machinectl? Oh yeah, it was not designed in the 1970s therefore it's Verboten, right? And how precisely does it stop you from booting?

            Originally posted by dreich View Post
            Disparaging as this may seem, I'm not dumping on systemd. I just see it as another failure towards integration, marred by the ambitions, scope and design decisions of its creators. Their efforts could have provided us with an integrated system, but it never happened.
            Not fully integrated at this stage, but it's a huge leap forward and it keeps progressing.

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by andyprough View Post
              I fail to see the problem
              Maybe that's the real crux of it

              Originally posted by andyprough View Post
              - it is perfectly adapted as a posix compliant parser especially for work on embedded systems, which is where s6 really shines.
              So once again, being POSIX compliant is a dubious advantage at the best of times; for core OS infrastructure it's a HUGE turn-off. Having said that, s6 (despite being POSIX), is in fact reasonably well suited for embedded systems which are by their nature entirely static. That's the same reason why it's dead on arrival for desktops or servers (meaning today's server environments, e.g. clouds, microservices, Kubernetes etc.)

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by jacob View Post
                it's dead on arrival for desktops or servers (meaning today's server environments, e.g. clouds, microservices, Kubernetes etc.)
                Working fine here. And quite popular with the docker and container crowd, which is why people like to pair it with Alpine.

                Comment


                • #48
                  I am happy with regular Debian running systemd, and think it would be nice if systemd was even more integrated in Debian. As far as Devuan goes I assume that it might be obsolete in less than 10 years, but so what? I still welcome Devuan, and while someone may think it is wasted resources I think that is quite narrow minded. Stubborn people often have to be a bit more creative to find different solutions to the same problem. Some of these solutions may suck , while others may be unique and interesting. And even if the solution itself is not good a new way of thinking may contribute to others seeing things in a different light as well.





                  http://www.dirtcellar.net

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by waxhead View Post
                    I am happy with regular Debian running systemd, and think it would be nice if systemd was even more integrated in Debian. As far as Devuan goes I assume that it might be obsolete in less than 10 years, but so what? I still welcome Devuan, and while someone may think it is wasted resources I think that is quite narrow minded. Stubborn people often have to be a bit more creative to find different solutions to the same problem. Some of these solutions may suck , while others may be unique and interesting. And even if the solution itself is not good a new way of thinking may contribute to others seeing things in a different light as well.
                    I also disagree with the idea that Devuan is a waste of resources. These are its maintainers' resources and if it's worth it for them, then more power to them. That's what FOSS is for. It would simply be a waste of my time and resources should I spend time with it.

                    Will systemd be obsolete in 10 years' time? Maybe, maybe not, it means nothing either way. The purpose of software is not to stand immutable through time. If systemd becomes obsolete, it won't be a vindication of its detractors because by the same token, s6/init/runit/openrc/whatnot will be even more obsolete.

                    If Microsoft or Apple thought along the same lines, NT and OSX wouldn't exist; instead Windows would still be a brittle hodgepodge of hacks on top of MS-DOS and Apple's PR would be working overtime making up a "multitasking myth" to justify the idea that a cooperative OS is somehow better.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by jacob View Post
                      It's not. S6 is not cleaner or leaner, it's a morass of ductape scripts that makes sysvinit look elegant. It also does not use cgroups, namespaces or capabilities and instead tries to implement service supervision using the meagre POSIX features alone, which has many known shortcomings.

                      But the main issue is not even that. S6 and 66 are an alternative to sysvinit, runit etc., not to systemd. It does not provide APIs to manage services, timers and other types of units programmatically. It does not create an integrated, tightly coupled environment like systemd does, which is the reason of its success (and not some imaginary red hat/IBM conspiracy).
                      The Debian project literally only switched to systemd bc the GNOME guys said that they will depend on it. It was not a conspiracy, but a public threat and blackmail.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X